Yeah, the “why be good if there’s no God/Hell” is a disturbing as fuck argument, because it essentially says that if they decide that their god wants them to start killing, they’ll do it.
I’m good because if I do something bad, I feel bad about it. It’s pretty simple.
exactly. i understand that doing bad things is bad because i feel guilt and shame when i do bad things. conversely, i feel good when i do good things. I also understand the broader implications of both-- not to mention that i have empathy and can see the impact of my actions upon others while caring as well.
i don’t need a fairy tale to threaten me with eternal torture in order to not be a sociopath.
That’s the problem. These people lack empathy. They don’t feel happy when they make someone else happy unless they get something more than that out of it.
because they’ve been taught that life is a zero-sum game: if anyone else’s life improves - even just a little - it must necessarily come at the cost of someone else’s life getting worse. this isn’t true, of course, but they can’t see life as any other way, so the ideas of equality and working together to improve society are antithetical to their worldview. they’re to be fought. They have an “every man for himself” philosophy, and it’s nothing but selfish, self-centered solipsism.
it also teaches their kid that selfish motivations and material rewards are the only things of value, and that they’re worth liying, cheating, and even stealing for-- as long as you don’t get caught, because right and wrong are only a matter of the consequences one may personally face. and, even then, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. again, the zero-sum game.
I had a coworker catholic who both said that statement, and also argued animals had no souls, so no one should ever get in trouble for animal abuse. Along with his ridiculously heated response to any government involvement in Healthcare, and the way he got close to yelling when discussing these topics while also claiming he was just being logical, not emotional. Why yes he did call women emotional, how did you know?
People like him scare me, because it sounds like if he could use some religious context to say I didn’t have a soul, he’d probably come to the same conclusion he did about dogs.
Yeah, the “why be good if there’s no God/Hell” is a disturbing as fuck argument, because it essentially says that if they decide that their god wants them to start killing, they’ll do it.
I’m good because if I do something bad, I feel bad about it. It’s pretty simple.
exactly. i understand that doing bad things is bad because i feel guilt and shame when i do bad things. conversely, i feel good when i do good things. I also understand the broader implications of both-- not to mention that i have empathy and can see the impact of my actions upon others while caring as well.
i don’t need a fairy tale to threaten me with eternal torture in order to not be a sociopath.
That’s the problem. These people lack empathy. They don’t feel happy when they make someone else happy unless they get something more than that out of it.
If you and I have an interaction that leaves us both happy, that’s socialism and GOPJesus frowns on socialism.
because they’ve been taught that life is a zero-sum game: if anyone else’s life improves - even just a little - it must necessarily come at the cost of someone else’s life getting worse. this isn’t true, of course, but they can’t see life as any other way, so the ideas of equality and working together to improve society are antithetical to their worldview. they’re to be fought. They have an “every man for himself” philosophy, and it’s nothing but selfish, self-centered solipsism.
And it also makes them treat their kids like shit.
Why make your kid feel good if you don’t gain anything?
it also teaches their kid that selfish motivations and material rewards are the only things of value, and that they’re worth liying, cheating, and even stealing for-- as long as you don’t get caught, because right and wrong are only a matter of the consequences one may personally face. and, even then, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. again, the zero-sum game.
I had a coworker catholic who both said that statement, and also argued animals had no souls, so no one should ever get in trouble for animal abuse. Along with his ridiculously heated response to any government involvement in Healthcare, and the way he got close to yelling when discussing these topics while also claiming he was just being logical, not emotional. Why yes he did call women emotional, how did you know?
People like him scare me, because it sounds like if he could use some religious context to say I didn’t have a soul, he’d probably come to the same conclusion he did about dogs.
One of those increasingly more common conservative Catholics. Disappointing.